Posted
by
kdawsonon Monday June 21, 2010 @12:39AM
from the distracted-stopping dept.

techmuse writes "The San Jose Mercury News reports that the California state legislature wants to put electronic advertising on license plates. The plate would display standard plate information when the car is moving, but would also display ads when the car is stopped for more than 4 seconds (say, at a red light). Not distracting or annoying at all! 'The bill has received no formal opposition. It passed unanimously through the Senate last month and is scheduled to be heard Monday by the Assembly Transportation Committee.'"

It'll be great when a car gets pulled over for speeding and the cop calls in the license plate.
"Roger, I need a check on a plate. California plate Papa-Three-November-One-Sierra. Wait no, scratch that. He rolled forward a bit. New plate number Charlie-One-Alpha-One-Sierra."

Indeed. I live in CA and my answer to the numbnut legislators who came up with this is simple - use Sacramento as a fucking billboard instead of whoring out the entire population of the state because you can't do your job worth a damn and balance your fucking budget. I propose an alternative. Turn the state capitol and its environs into a billboard farm (the walls should sell for a high price dontcha think?) and make all legislators, state and local, wear those garish advertisement suits (like the Nascar idiots). That oughta bring in the cash. I swear, at this point, it seems like those douchebags have just given up entirely. Twits. Another year of this nonsense and I swear I'm gonna go Republican:'( NTTAWWT

Someone clue me in on this - exactly what happens if a state goes bankrupt? What if a state legislature just throws up its hands and says, "I got nuthin". Can they just, ah... foreclose on a state? I mean, what are we looking at here, worst case? Should I start stocking up on canned goods and shit? Emigrate to Oregon? What?

Eventually, the case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Unites States. New Hampshire lost 6-3 on First Amendment -- Freedom of Speech grounds. The defendant was eventually awarded legal fees which New Hampshire refused to pay until a marshall walked into a state liquor store with a writ and demanded $21,000.

Wow. He covers up the "live free" slogan, and they jailed him for that. Sounds like "the beatings will continue until morale improves";).Later on he moves to Connecticut and covers up "The Constitution State" and gets a citation for that... Talk about irony.

Anyway, the e-ads are a ridiculous idea from so many points, are they really serious about it?

Just because the vehicle is stationary doesn't mean you wouldn't need to know the license plate number. Most people drive around with non-faked license plates

The irony of course is that the guy who received the citation still doesn't understand the First Amendment:

His faith causes him to question whether the First Amendment has been extended too far in certain circumstances. He says that the First Amendment should not protect immorality. "I think that freedom should protect the right principles of morality," he says.

"I think the ACLU does a good job for good things and I think they do a good job for bad things, such as protecting pornography and homosexuality -- things that conflict with the teachings of the Bible," Maynard says.

On the flip side, I'd love a "back off" button I could get to make the plate flash a message at the wanker behind me, or even a "turn your lights on".

I think we all would at times. There are some homemade examples of this on youtube. Do note, however, that this is a direct violation of the law in many places and would fall under more general reckless driving laws in the rest.

Rule of thumb: moving/changing signs are not allowed on cars.

Also for those who don't know; The California state legislature throws stupid stuff like this around all the time. It never goes anywhere. They don't do it because they want to pass the law. They do it because there is some wealthy business behind it. This is clearly a crappy ad for some crappy ad manufacturer.

The California state legislature throws stupid stuff like this around all the time. It never goes anywhere. They don't do it because they want to pass the law. They do it because there is some wealthy business behind it.

That is a motherfucking stupid reason to vote for or pass a bill. It borders on treason.

Also for those who don't know; The California state legislature throws stupid stuff like this around all the time. It never goes anywhere.

Like any legislative body, the California state legislature has lots of bills introduced, byt most of the more off-the-wall ones never get significant support and don't pass out of committee, much less out of the first house.

OTOH, this particular measure passed out of the California State Senate without objection and is now being heard by an Assembly committee, so I'm not

I grew up in Indiana and lived all over the US. I've always ignored those yellow advisory speed limit signs on curves and stuff. But I discovered that in Tennessee, more than anywhere else, you ignore those at your own peril. Even in a BMW!

True, it's culturally very different. In Germany "30mph advised" means "it'd take WET ice and summer-tires to make this curve dangerous in 70mph", whereas in parts of Norway, "30 mph advised" means "if you enter this curve in 50mph, you're unlikely to exit it in one piece"

Yes, it's safe to ignore those cautionary signs, most of the time. But, you should always be aware of them. Dead Man's Curve on I-90 in Cleveland Ohio pretty much means what it says. The Indian Stairway in Oklahoma says 25 mph on every curve, and you can do 35 on most of them, but two of those curves mean exactly what they say. There are a lot more.

And, if you're driving a truck or a camper, you had better pay attention too. We have a curve three miles north of my house in Arkansas, with warning signs that say "35 MPH". I can do ~65 in any of my kid's sports cars - but big trucks and campers alike have gone off that curve while doing ~40 - 45 MPH.

My own personal rule of thumb, is to slow to within 15 MPH of what the sign says BEFORE getting to the curve, then adjust as I see fit as I actually enter the curve.

I've found a few curves in W. Virginia and N. Carolina that scared the crap out of me, too. My rule of thumb was dangerously to fast for them! It sucks to get into the curve, then realize that it gets sharper before it straightens out!

Want a realistic speed limit, with zero meaningless bullshit involved? Build your road. Open it to the public. Monitor the speed of traffic for a month or more. There WILL be some idiots who drive to fast - just let them, they are part of the formula. There will also be some other morons who drive so slow, you wonder if they are alive or not. No problem - they are also part of the formula.

After you've monitored speeds for a reasonable period of time (remember, I said a month or more - six months seems to long, probably 60 to 90 days is right) you find that 85th percentile, and post that as the speed limit. Go ahead, and round it to the nearest 5 mph, or, if you insist (out of some unfounded fear) round to the next LOWER 5 mph. Post that speed limit now.

You will find that *almost* nobody speeds. You have found the magical number, which reasonable people can all agree on. Some still drive to slow - and you really ought to check them out. Elderly people, people with poor vision, people with poor reflexes, people with near zero experience. Go ahead, and check them out.

Those who normally speed through bullshit speed zones are *mostly* going to recognize that the speed limit here is reasonable, and they will tend to observe it, or stay within that 5 mph over range, for which almost no cop ever pulls a guy over.

The oddball who INSISTS that he is going to drive 10 to 30 mile over the speed limit is an utter moron, and he needs to be taken to court, fined, driver's license suspended, and possibly given some jail time. He has no business on the road.

Tough noogies. If 80, 90, or 100 MPH scares you, then you have no business driving on a major highway. Take the back roads, and look at the pretty farms along the way. Or, just stay in town, and fly if you must travel to another city.

What is the point of posting a speed limit at a limit that is already natural to 85% of people on that road? WHY POST IT?

There is no need to set a speed limit at all, unless there is some unnatural thing happening around a zone, like a school zone where the speed limit is not due to the road conditions but is there because some kids are dumb and/or inattentive, while others just don't understand the danger yet due to lack of experience?

There will ALWAYS be some few damn fools who think that they are Mario Andretti. Places where everyone else is quite happy to drive 50 mph, he will insist on doing 80 or more. Places where everyone else is doing ~100 mph, he will insist on going 150 or more.

Remember, we don't have an Autobahn here in the states. There are few places that really are designed to run more than 100mph. There is SOME POINT at which an increase in speed is reckless endangerment, on any and all roadways in the states.

Those reckless drivers who insist on endangering every single soul that they get close to should be dealt with, and harshly.

The speed limit isn't to limit the reasonable person who is driving within safe limits - it is only there to enable the cops to identify and cite the less common idiots.

If the US should ever build the equivalent of the Autobahn, and decide not to post any speed limit at all, I will be among the first to drive it.:^)

If the US should ever build the equivalent of the Autobahn, and decide not to post any speed limit at all, I will be among the first to drive it.:^)

I'd wait a year for the loons to Darwin themselves and then just go out and.... and.... make love to it. Like I said in a previous post, take away limits that people have lived under all their lives and the first expression of that newfound freedom is likely to be... unwise.

The point of posting speed limits it is to keep most traffic driving at roughly the same speed. I absolutely agree with your suggestion to remove speed recommendations altogether (having lived in Germany myself, and clearly understanding where you are coming from), but that will NEVER happen in America. We are uptight, conservative and lack proper driver's education.

Also, the Autobahn is engineered with minimum inclines and declines and beautifully engineered equal-radius corners. US highways are engineere

My car has a built-in range check and its computer tells me how far behind I am behind the car in front of me.

I feel most comfortable at a time distance of +3 seconds and let the car drive in cruise control then, which I turn off at 2.0-2.5 seconds. I have currently set the range check to start blinking warningly at 1.5 seconds or less. At that point you really need to be paying very close attention to what's going on on the road (yes, that means watching quite a few cars ahead). When it's at less then 1.2 seconds I usually put my foot on the brake to be able to quickly react to anything (and it's high time to lose some speed anyway).

If someone cuts into the lane right in front of me it sometimes goes down to 0.8 seconds. Needless to say that I make damn sure it doesn't stay that way for long.

I suppose speed limits of 30 mph in a residential area is purely motivated towards speeding tickets income and nothing to do with the 20% fatality at 30mph vs 40 mph where its 90% fatality rate. Seems like this are speed limits imposed by engineers. Of course now they are pushing for 20mph in residential areas which decreases the chance of death to around 2.5%. Of course you could argue its political when over 3 thousand people in the UK alone are killed on roads each year. You can throw out whatever excuse for driving irresponsibly, but don't think your fooling everyone.

You, sir, seem to have bought into the idea that the politicians who vote and set the speed limits have a clue. GP knows what he is talking about. Google the terms "speed limit" and "85th percentile".

You, and all drivers and voters, should be aware that politicians have no desire to post "safe" speed limits, because the vast majority of people will observe those speed limits. Their motivation is to generate revenue, by posting speed limits BELOW what safety dictates. If you know of a road near you where more than half the people consistently speed by more than 10 MPH over the speed limit, then you know of a cash cow.

There is SOME truth in your statement. In residential and business areas, streets that are poorly designed are indeed dangerous. For instance, there is absolutely NO REASON to put a 6 lane highway through a school zone - or, conversely, to build a school on a 6 lane highway. Depending on which was built first, whoever designed and built the latter structure was a complete MORON!!

However, the 85th percentile applies even in built up areas, PROVIDED THAT the streets and roads were designed and built by engineers and contractors who have a clue about traffic flow.

When you get into old city areas that predate motor vehicles, and when you get into cities and towns with no zoning or planning committees, then all bets are off.

It has been proven many times over, the slower you go in a built up area, the less critical and minor accidents occur.

Among all drivers? Or only the crappy ones?

All those studies are biased in their selection, in that only people who get into accidents are selected.

They don't prove that accidents happen because of speed. They prove that people who are likely to get into accidents are more likely to get into accidents at higher speeds. They demonstrate nothing about drivers who are not likely to get into accidents in the first place.

An acquaintance who worked for one those agencies for forty years assures me that the primary consideration in setting speed limits is revenue. The bureaucrats ask the engineers what the optimum safe speed is and then set the limit as far below that as they think the voters will tolerate. He says that unrealistically-low limits increase accident rates by increasing the speed dispersion.

>...it's designed to display warnings for local traffic conditions so it> presumably has built-in GPS to know where you are.

Short-range roadside transmitters would suffice for that (paid for by the company so that they can sell local ads). However, this is an opportunity to get state-owned black boxes onto every car in the state. Initially, of course, Californians will be assured that no information will be gathered. Then the exceptions will start creeping in. Finally, a connector will be mandated and the plate plugged into the vehicle CAN bus.

It will be a felony to meddle with the plate in any way, including suppressing the ads.

It says they're looking to be able to put logos and such on the plates too, to "support your favorite team". So I can just imagine what the first hacker is going to draw on a plate.

So they're running a $19 billion deficit and these are the ideas they're coming up with to fix the problem? How about, STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY?

The best ones were at the bottom... other upcoming CA legislation. Making it illegal to use a mobile device while on a bicycle? Really? They have nothing better to worry about? Making all lead ammunition illegal for hunting... excepting that it's already illegal to use in most cases? Time well spent, you goofs. Oh, but they remembered to throw in some legislation to make it easier for people to transfer their foodstamp program benefits. Glad to see they have their priorities straight.:P

The article said it was to prevent animals from swallowing spent casings and introducing lead into the food chain. I couldn't speak to the likelihood or real impact of that actually happening.

It is not the shell casings, it is the bullet or the shot inside shotgun shells. Birds that bottom feed eat the used shot on the bottom of lakes and waterways causing the lead to get into the (animal) food chain. It is not just waterfowl, scavengers such as the condor are also effected. Lead Shot [wikipedia.org]

Lead shot and bullets (especially copper-jacketed bullets) aren't terribly dangerous as far as lead exposure goes, since the elemental lead used in projectile construction isn't as bio-available as its derivative organic compounds (like, say, lead acetate or tetra-ethyl lead).

I'm quite familiar with the difference between bullets, shot, primers, wads, powder, shotshells and pistol and rifle casings. I'm a longtime shooter. I specifically used the language used in the article to avoid any confusion.

People vote for ballot measures for spending, but then vote against the tax increases to pay for it.

So, 2005 was the last year I could conveniently find (read 10 seconds of googling) numbers for, but according to taxfoundation.org, in 2005, CA sent ~$286,627,000,000 to the Federal Government, on the other hand they received ~$242,023,000,000 dollars worth of federal funding.

I'd just like to note that this represents a 44.6 billion dollar disparity.

Of course, the withdrawal of that money from the federal budget would mean the effective collapse of numerous other states (I started to add up the numbers, but frankly, I'm too lazy.)

The state and federal taxes are not related. It does not matter how much the people of California pay to the federal government, only how much they pay to their own state. Now if your saying that the forty billion dollar difference is not making up for unfunded mandates at the federal level, well boo hoo, that still does not help California's problem.

California's problem is based in part on too many entitlements, too much pay and benefits to the government workers, and far too many people off the tax rolls. The amounts going to pay government employee pay, pensions, and benefits, is staggering and only getting worse as politicians pay that group to keep themselves in power.

No, having that forty billion extra won't save California, they need to have reasonable expenditures before any amount of income matters. The sad part is, many states in the Northeast US are in worse shape but you never hear of it

The state and federal taxes are not related. It does not matter how much the people of California pay to the federal government, only how much they pay to their own state.

The money is collected from taxes and sent out of the state, that sounds like a problem to me. We're not printing the fucking money and sending it to them. The money comes ultimately from businesses and individuals throughout California, and we're funding other people's mandates! Why should any state that can't stand on its own continue to exist? If the state isn't worth having around on its own merits, merge it with some state that is, and take a star off the damned flag.

That's too be expected. In general the blue states pay for running the federal government, but it's typically the red states that whine and demand tax breaks. California, New York and almost certainly Florida would be paying more than they're getting. Here in WA we've got the same problem on the state level. The vast majority of the taxes come from the west of the cascades, but east of the cascades is where most of the support for hobbling government and the ability to pay for things the voters demanded is

Here's a very edifying collection of those statistics. The "libertarians" amongst us are actually receiving the most benefit from our socialist policies, while the "socialists" amongst us are actually those that are quite self sufficient.

Exactly. California is ungovernable and run buy a bunch of tax and waste (it's a stretch to call it tax and spend) idiots. We lived there for 20+ years and got out 5 years ago due to the financial insanity of trying to make ends meet. I can honestly say the only things I miss are some of the radio stations (which I now get on the net) and Disneyland. Everything else is rubbish as compared to the asking price of living and doing business there. California is becoming a place for the rich and the poor. The rich can afford it, and the state pays* for everything if you're poor. If you're middle class they bend you over and pound you in the ass. With sand.

Well I hate to be the one to say this but California is prevented from collecting sufficient tax receipts to administer any state government on a day by day basis because of the structural budgetary problems imposed by Proposition 13. If forcing people to watch cartoons while tailgating doesn't work then maybe California should start shutting off traffic lights during off-peak hours to save electricity.

The idea is cool, but I would be really pissed if someone could put ads on my car without my consent. But how else will they rake in the money for the state? (Maybe make it optional and split the ad revenue with the driver?)

The idea is definitely not cool. But technically the plate belongs to the state so I guess they could do whatever they wanted with it. It's going to eventually come down to someone taking offense to what could potentially be placed on their car. I really don't see this ever happening.

Actually, about two weeks ago the Queensland state government announced that it was reducing its annual vehicle registration fees by $24.00. The reduction, however, wasn't in a state government portion of the fees - it came from the renegotiated Compulsory Third Party insurance premiums. And it's more than offset by the rising fuel costs after they axed the state fuel subsidy last year. Go figure.

If they can send (?) ad and other information (FTFA) to your plate, they can receive it as well. I am guessing; where you are, for how long, or for how fast you are going. Possibly privacy takes another icicle in the eye.

This seems like it would be an added drain on the car battery, especially if the system wasn't smart enough to tell the difference between the car in run with the engine running and the car in run (or electronics only) with the engine off. Will the state pay for dead batteries?

And of course that is saying nothing about the cost of the drained lead-acid batteries that are in most cars on the road today...

I would think that they might not want ads for products that impair driving (alcohol for example); it would probably be bad to have cars running ads for Budweiser for example. But then where do they draw the line for who can and who cannot run ads?

I don't think electronic ads would be that interesting on license plates,
but how about a game of Tetris?
The car behind could honk once to rotate left, and honk twice to rotate right.
This could really reduce boredom in traffic jams!

I guess you were asleep when they showed that "how a bill becomes law" video. The California state legislature hasn't even voted on this, and I doubt that it ever will. Like it says in TFA, this is a proposal by a one particular member, and will never be more than that unless he gets a lot of other assemblymen and state senators to back it.

I guess you fell asleep before reading the sentence in TFA that says the bill "passed unanimously through the Senate last month"? The Senate is part of the Legislature, y